INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana lawmakers are reviewing a bill that would allow Hoosiers to borrow more money through payday loans and other nontraditional financial establishments. Those loans would have higher interest rates and additional fees.
For individuals facing financial strain and in need of immediate cash, payday loans can often appear to be the only solution.
Currently, there is a cap of $825 on how much borrowers can access from payday lenders that comes with a minimum of a two-week repayment period. You can read the current statute by clicking here.
The proposed legislation would permit lenders to participate in “supervised loans.”
“There is really no product in Indiana that’s regulated in the middle for subprime borrowers,” said Rep. Jake Teshka (R-North Liberty), the author of the bill.
If passed, the billwould enable non-depository lenders — those that do not offer checking or savings accounts — to provide loans up to $25,000. Additionally, it would increase the maximum interest rate for loans from 25% to 36%.
“At 25 percent there are certain borrowers that these companies cannot underwrite, so there are certain loans that go unmade,” Teshka added.
The bill would also allow lenders to impose monthly service fees on top of the interest already charged. The breakdown of how those fees would work can be seen below.
Principal Amount Up to $2,500: Lenders can charge a monthly service fee of up to 8% of the original principal amount.
Principal Amount Between $2,501 and $4,000: The monthly service fee can be up to 6% of the original principal amount.
Principal Amount Between $4,001 and $5,000: For this range, the monthly service fee can be up to 5% of the original principal amount.
Loans must be between $5,000 and $25,000 and have a minimum term of 6 months.
Lenders may charge specific monthly service fees based on the principal amount.
They need to comply with limits on loan finance charges, which could not exceed 36% per year on unpaid balances, depending on the amount.
Bryce Gustafson, a former payday loan user, recounted his own experience with a payday loan. “I didn’t really look at the bottom line or the fine details… that’s on me, but I had to kind of dig myself out of that situation and ask my folks to help me out. I think I was 20 years old at the time,” he said.
Gustafson expressed concern that increasing loan amounts and adding service fees could further burden lower-income Hoosiers.
“If traditional banks aren’t going to provide them the ability to get loans, then they are almost forced to this,” he said.
The Indiana Community Action Poverty Institute shares Gustafson’s concerns.
Lawmakers consider higher payday loans
“This idea that it’s there to help make really expensive loans to struggling borrowers… that doesn’t make any sense at all,” said Erin Macey, the institute’s director.
Despite the critiques, Teshka argues that there currently are no viable alternatives for borrowers with poor credit and low incomes.
“I would love for there to be another solution, right? But currently there just isn’t one, and there is this huge gap in the marketplace,” he said.
Teshka mentioned that lawmakers are considering additional amendments as the legislation awaits a committee vote.
Lawmakers in Indiana are currently considering a bill that would increase the borrowing limits for payday loans in the state. Payday loans are short-term, high-interest loans that are typically used by individuals who are in need of quick cash.
The proposed bill would increase the maximum amount that individuals can borrow from a payday lender from $605 to $1,000. Proponents of the bill argue that increasing the borrowing limits would provide consumers with more access to credit and financial flexibility.
However, opponents of the bill argue that raising the borrowing limits for payday loans could lead to greater financial hardship for borrowers, as the high interest rates associated with these loans can trap individuals in a cycle of debt.
Lawmakers are currently weighing the potential benefits and drawbacks of increasing payday loan borrowing limits in Indiana, and the bill is expected to be a topic of debate in the coming weeks. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
The website for the U.S. Agency for International Development went dark Saturday afternoon as lawmakers and aid workers, already reeling over the recent freezes to foreign assistance and the suspension of senior officials, braced for the possibility that the agency might be shut down.
A slimmed-down page for U.S.A.I.D. appeared on the State Department’s website Saturday afternoon, suggesting that the agency’s activities — which are currently severely limited — had been brought under the State Department’s umbrella.
Democratic lawmakers and aid workers have been gripped since Friday by reports that President Trump was planning to issue an executive order dismantling the aid agency and moving its work to the State Department.
Mr. Trump has made no secret of his disdain for the scope of American foreign aid, arguing that sending taxpayer dollars overseas runs counter to his America first agenda.
By Saturday, lawmakers had received word that at least some of the U.S.A.I.D. signs at the agency’s headquarters in downtown Washington had come down, and rumors were circling that mission directors around the world were being called back to the United States. Those reports could not be independently verified.
Two U.S.A.I.D. employees, who work in the Washington headquarters and spoke on condition of anonymity because of an order barring employees from discussing any changes to the agency, said that they were working under an atmosphere of fear and chaos, and that half of the agency’s work force had been eliminated in the last week.
People familiar with the changes said that Pete Marocco, a State Department official who held multiple roles in the first Trump administration, appeared to be overseeing the gutting of the U.S.A.I.D. program.
Three other U.S.A.I.D. workers, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that Gemini, an A.I. program, had been installed on their email accounts, leading to fears that deputies of Elon Musk, whom Mr. Trump tasked to run a new cost-cutting group known as the Department of Government Efficiency, were trying to surveil their activities.
State Department officials did not answer inquiries seeking to clarify the purpose of the moves, which lawmakers and aid workers said could be anything from a restructuring to an effort to significantly downsize, if not eliminate, most U.S. foreign aid programs.
But Democratic lawmakers said they feared a potentially bleak endgame for the aid agency.
“All the signals of how the senior staff have been put on administrative leave, many of the field staff and headquarters staff have been put on a gag order,” Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, who sits on the Senate panels on foreign relations and appropriations, said Saturday afternoon in an interview.
“It seems more like the early stages of shutting down than it does of reviewing it or merely retitling it,” he added.
U.S.A.I.D. is the government’s lead agency for humanitarian aid and development assistance. Since it was established in 1961, it has received foreign policy guidance from the State Department, but otherwise functioned as an independent entity.
Foreign assistance distributed by the agency, which supports health services, disaster relief, anti-poverty efforts and a range of other programs, makes up less than 1 percent of the government budget.
In January, the Trump administration ordered a freeze to nearly all foreign aid programs and later issued a waiver to allow programs that administer lifesaving humanitarian aid to keep functioning.
The changes to U.S.A.I.D.’s structure that staff and advocates are fearing are presenting a further complication to groups that were already scrambling to figure out how to keep programs afloat during the funding freeze.
Lawmakers have argued Mr. Trump cannot unilaterally shutter the agency legally, as it was created by Congress and receives specific appropriations. The federal government, including U.S.A.I.D., is currently funded through March 14.
“Trump isn’t satisfied just to close programs and fire staff. He is now planning to ELIMINATE THE ENTIRE AGENCY. Maybe this weekend,” Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, wrote on social media on Saturday. “That would be illegal. He cannot unilaterally close a federal agency. Another assault on the Constitution.”
Lawmakers have also warned that if U.S.A.I.D.’s operations are scaled back indefinitely, it will enable China, Russia, Iran and other U.S. adversaries to gain strategic footholds overseas that would damage U.S. security in the long term.
“Eliminating USAID — which prevents famines, counters extremism, and creates more markets for U.S. exports — would make the world a more dangerous place for Americans and be a gift to China and Russia,” Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, said in a social media post on Saturday.
Sheera Frenkel, Nicholas Nehamas, Edward Wong and Michael Crowley contributed reporting.
As the future of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) hangs in the balance, Democratic lawmakers are warning that the end may be near for the crucial aid agency.
In a recent statement, members of Congress expressed their concerns over proposed budget cuts and restructuring plans that could severely hamper USAID’s ability to provide vital assistance to countries in need. The agency, which has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign aid efforts for decades, plays a crucial role in promoting development, democracy, and stability around the world.
Lawmakers are calling on the Biden administration to prioritize funding for USAID and ensure that it remains a key player in U.S. foreign policy. They argue that cutting or dismantling the agency would not only harm vulnerable populations in developing countries, but also undermine America’s standing as a global leader.
As the debate over the future of USAID continues, it is clear that the stakes are high. The fate of millions of people who rely on U.S. assistance hangs in the balance, and Democratic lawmakers are urging the administration to take action before it’s too late. The end may be near for USAID, but with the right support and funding, the agency can continue to make a positive impact around the world.
As Donald Trump tightens the nation’s immigration policies, lawmakers in Democrat-led states are proposing new measures that could erect legal obstacles for federal immigration officials and help immigrants lacking legal status avoid deportation.
The resistance efforts in California, New York and other states are a counterpoint to the many Republican-led states advancing measures to aid Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration, highlighting a national divide.
In just his first week in office, Trump halted refugee arrivals; fast-tracked deportations; sent military troops to the southern border; lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals; attempted to end birthright citizenship; and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state and local officials whom they believe are interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration.
Hundreds of bills on immigration already have been introduced in states, and more action is expected next week. Republican governors Ron DeSantis of Florida and Bill Lee of Tennessee have called special legislative sessions to begin Monday to support Trump’s immigration agenda.
Meanwhile, Democrats in states such as Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington are backing measures to expand healthcare and higher education for immigrants, restrict landlords from inquiring about immigration status or block government agreements to open new immigrant-detention centers.
Many US adults support stronger security at the southern border and deporting immigrants in the US illegally who have been convicted of violent crimes, according to a survey by the Associated Press-Norc Center for Public Affairs Research. But some actions have less consensus. About four in 10 American adults support deporting all immigrants living in the US illegally, while a similar share are opposed.
In immigration courts, unlike in criminal courts, there is no constitutional right to a government-funded attorney. As Trump ramps up deportation efforts, some state measures would help pay for attorneys to defend people facing immigration proceedings.
One leader of such efforts is Catalina Cruz, a New York assembly member who came to the US at age nine from Colombia and remained without legal status for more than a decade before gaining permanent residency and becoming a US citizen and a lawyer.
Cruz has filed more than a half-dozen bills to aid immigrants. One would establish the right under state law to legal counsel in immigration proceedings in New York, or elsewhere if an immigrant was living in New York. Another would authorize state grants for organizations to hire, train and equip staff to provide legal aid to people facing deportation.
“In a world where the threat of mass deportations is imminent,” Cruz said, the legislation “gives people an opportunity to fight their case, to fight for their families, to fight for their rights”.
Cruz estimates 60% of the residents in her New York City legislative district are non-citizens, adding: “People are terrified.”
New York is among several states that already fund legal aid for immigrants. But advocates want about twice as much money as the Democratic governor, Kathy Hochul, has proposed.
“This is a moment where investing in due process and fairness for immigrants at risk in New York is of fundamental importance,” said Shayna Kessler, director of a universal representation initiative at the non-profit Vera Institute of Justice.
Some legislative proposals also would fund attorneys who could help immigrants obtain legal residency.
A bill by Lisa Reynolds, an Oregon state senator, would require the state department of human services to offer grants to non-profits to help people who aren’t citizens change their immigration status or become lawful permanent residents. It would provide $6m to launch the program during the budget biennium beginning in July.
“Oregon has had a very proud tradition of doing all we can to help those who have recently immigrated to our state from other countries, and especially those who have been political refugees,” Reynolds said. “We’re all feeling a little more urgency around this.”
Since 1987, Oregon law has barred law enforcement officers from “detecting or apprehending persons for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws”. Voters in 2018 defeated a ballot measure that would have repealed the so-called sanctuary law.
Earlier this week, the Trump administration reversed guidance that for more than a decade had restricted federal agencies from carrying out immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, such as schools, churches and healthcare facilities. Some parents now fear immigration raids at schools.
In California, about one in five children live in families where at least one person does not have legal status, according to the Children’s Partnership, a Los Angeles-based non-profit.
California assembly member Al Muratsuchi, chair of the chamber’s education committee, is sponsoring legislation that would make it more difficult for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to enter schools and childcare centers.
The bill would require federal officials to have a judicial warrant, written statement of purpose, valid identification and approval from a facility administrator. If those criteria were met, federal immigration officials still could only access areas where children weren’t present.
Muratsuchi said he started working on the legislation as soon as Trump was elected.
“This is a top priority to protect all of our students, including our immigrant students,” he said.
In recent months, Democratic lawmakers have been ramping up their efforts to combat the anti-immigration push coming from the Trump administration. With the administration’s relentless efforts to crack down on immigration and deport undocumented immigrants, Democrats are fighting back by devising legal obstacles to protect immigrant communities.
One of the key tactics being used by Democratic lawmakers is to challenge the Trump administration’s immigration policies in court. By filing lawsuits against measures such as the travel ban, the termination of DACA, and the family separation policy, Democrats are hoping to block these initiatives and protect the rights of immigrants.
Additionally, Democratic lawmakers are working to pass legislation that would provide protections for undocumented immigrants, such as the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform. These measures would provide a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants and ensure that families are not torn apart by deportation.
Overall, Democratic lawmakers are standing up for immigrant rights and pushing back against the anti-immigration agenda of the Trump administration. By devising legal obstacles and advocating for pro-immigrant policies, Democrats are working to ensure that immigrants are treated with dignity and respect in the United States.
COLUMBUS, Ohio – Ohio Republicans, Democrats and independent voters overwhelmingly believe the state should increase funding for child care for working parents, a new poll shows, potentially buoying the chances that daycare-related legislation passes in the General Assembly.
According to the December poll conducted by Alexandria, Virginia-based Public Opinion Strategies on behalf of Groundwork Ohio, which advocates for expanding child care access, 84% of voters want state funding for child care “to increase access, affordability and quality.”
Of the 800 Ohio voters surveyed, 77% of Republicans supported state funding; 92% of Democrats supported it and 84% of independents supported it. It comes as not only child advocates, but also business groups such as the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, are concerned that the cost and availability of good programs is keeping many parents out of the workforce, which stalls the state’s economy.
The number of available workers and inflation’s costs for child care businesses have worsened child care availability since the COVID-19 pandemic.
In previous legislative sessions, state lawmakers introduced virtually no bills to address child care. But the last two-year session, which ended in December, saw several, including offering refundable and non-refundable tax credits for families; a tax credit for employers who help pay their workers’ child care costs; more publicly funded child care; universal preschool and full-day kindergarten; and free child care benefits for child care workers. But none made it across the finish line.
Three bills have been introduced already to start the new session, signaling that lawmakers understand the issue is not going away.
Last year, Gov. Mike DeWine increased state vouchers for publicly funded daycare for about 8,000 more children. Yet, the new poll for Groundwork Ohio found that voters have an appetite for more programs – from tax credits to more subsidies.
Among the 800 voters who were surveyed, 484 had children aged five and younger. About a third of those respondents or their partners said they stayed at home with children. Some of them, however, wished to enter the workforce to provide money for their families, said Jarrett Lewis, a partner for the pollster, who explained the poll on a webinar Tuesday morning.
About six in 10 women who stayed at home part-time or full-time said they would return to the workforce if they had access to high-quality child care at a reasonable cost. And half of working parents said that they had to cut back in their working hours to care for their children in recent months, Lewis said.
“This has an undeniable impact on the state’s economy,” he said. “Ohio voters in this poll, you’ll see data that they agree that labor shortages in the state are in part due to a lack of access to high-quality child care. In light of this, Ohio voters very much, very strongly support increasing funding for child care in order to increase access, affordability and quality. That support, importantly, extends across party lines.”
Among the bills introduced thus far in the Ohio General Assembly are House Bill 2 and Senate Bill 32, similar though not identical bills that would create voluntary programs for employers to participate in, in which child care expenses would be covered in three equal parts by the state, the employer and the employee. The employer could choose to pay a portion or all of the worker’s share as well.
Both bills would send up to $10 million to the Ohio Department of Children and Youth to cover the program and the state’s share. HB 2 and SB 32 are sponsored by Republicans. GOP-sponsored bills generally have a better chance of passing since both chambers of the legislature are controlled by Republicans.
The third bill, House Bill 7, is also GOP-sponsored. It would allow foster families and kinship caregivers – family and extended family members who take children in if the parents are unable to care for them – eligible for publicly funded child care and preschool.
At the federal level, families can claim the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit on their federal returns, which is $600 per dependent child, said Brittany Boulton, Groundwork Ohio’s vice president.
“That $600 per child is currently up for debate in Congress, so that’s a federal concern,” she said.
In our Rethinking Child care series,cleveland.com and the Plain Dealer are examining the expense and difficulty of finding quality child care and proposing solutions to share families’ burdens — and help our economy.
A recent poll conducted in Ohio has revealed a surprising bipartisan consensus on the importance of child care in the state. The poll, which surveyed a diverse group of Ohio residents, found that an overwhelming majority of both Democrats and Republicans believe that access to affordable, high-quality child care is crucial for working families.
The results of the poll come at a pivotal time for child care funding in Ohio, as lawmakers are currently considering changes to the state’s child care subsidy program. Advocates for child care reform are hopeful that the bipartisan support shown in the poll will encourage lawmakers to prioritize funding for child care programs that benefit working families.
According to the poll, 87% of Ohio residents believe that access to affordable child care is important for working families, with 74% saying that the state should invest more in child care programs. Additionally, 82% of respondents said that they would be more likely to support a candidate who prioritizes funding for child care.
The poll also found that Ohio residents are in favor of specific policy changes, such as increasing the income eligibility limit for child care subsidies and providing more funding for early childhood education programs.
Overall, the poll results indicate a strong bipartisan consensus on the need for increased investment in child care in Ohio. Lawmakers will now have the opportunity to listen to their constituents and make funding decisions that will benefit working families across the state.
Tags:
Ohio child care funding, bipartisan consensus, Ohio lawmakers, child care services, child care funding changes, Ohio politics, bipartisan support, child care initiatives, Ohio legislation, child care advocacy, child care resources, Ohio families, state funding, child care survey, bipartisan agreement, child care policy
LGBTQ+ rights advocates protested at the Idaho State Capitol after lawmakers approved a memorial calling for the reversal of federal same-sex marriage protections.
BOISE, Idaho — Dozens of LGBTQ+ rights advocates rallied at the Idaho State Capitol Sunday to protest a legislative petition that calls on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its landmark same-sex marriage ruling.
The demonstration came four days after the House State Affairs Committee approved a memorial asking the high court to reverse its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
“One day, I want to marry someone that I love just as much as my counterparts,” said one of the rally organizers, Cole Lancaster.
Lancaster said his dreams of marriage feel increasingly threatened in his home state.
State lawmakers backing the memorial argue that marriage regulations should be determined at the state level rather than by federal mandate.
“I don’t think marriage is a fundamental right,” said Heather Scott, the petition’s sponsor. “It’s not the federal government’s job to figure out what’s going on in Idaho.”
Scott said the goal isn’t to take away rights but rather to transfer conversations like same-sex marriage to the state level so Idaho lawmakers can decide for themselves.
“What we’re encouraging is that these discussions happen within the state, with our local people, instead of through the federal government,” Scott said.
But protesters expressed deep skepticism about putting their marriage rights in the hands of state legislators. Many wrote letters to lawmakers explaining what their marriages and equal rights meant to them personally.
“Our marriages don’t affect anyone else,” Lancaster said. “We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re going to be heard, and we’re not going anywhere.”
Protesters vowed to continue fighting against the memorial and any other attempts to roll back marriage equality.
“We’re telling people in the Capitol building that we don’t want this initiative to continue any further,” Lancaster said.
In a recent move that has sparked outrage among the LGBTQ+ community, lawmakers in Idaho have introduced a bill that aims to challenge the legality of same-sex marriage in the state. In response, activists have come together to rally under the banner of “We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re going to be heard.”
The proposed bill, known as HB 396, seeks to nullify the 2014 federal court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in Idaho. This move has been met with fierce opposition from advocates of LGBTQ+ rights, who see it as a blatant attack on the progress that has been made in achieving marriage equality.
“We will not stand idly by while our hard-fought rights are threatened,” said one activist at the rally. “We have come too far to allow discriminatory legislation to turn back the clock on marriage equality.”
The rally, which drew a large crowd of supporters, featured speeches from community leaders, allies, and individuals directly impacted by the potential repeal of same-sex marriage rights. Chants of “Love is love” and “Equality for all” echoed through the streets as demonstrators made their voices heard.
As the fight for LGBTQ+ rights continues, activists are determined to stand firm in their commitment to equality and justice. “We will not be silenced,” declared one speaker. “We will continue to fight for our rights, our love, and our families. We’re here, we’re queer, and we’re going to be heard.”
GOP lawmakers compiled a list of ideas to help shape the budget this year.
The ideas included rescinding Biden’s student-debt relief efforts, including the SAVE plan.
Republicans have also proposed ideas that have bipartisan support, like ending interest capitalization.
President Donald Trump and the new Republican-controlled Congress could make major changes for millions of student-loan borrowers.
That new GOP trifecta is likely to unwind several of former President Joe Biden’s moves on student debt relief. A memo compiled by Republicans on the House Budget Committee and viewed by Business Insider put forth a list of options that included changes to education programs that could appear in a coming spending bill. It suggested repealing Biden’s SAVE income-driven repayment plan, repealing regulations that allowed for debt relief for defrauded borrowers, and limiting eligibility for Public Service Loan Forgiveness.
The memo also proposed allowing borrowers who default on their student loans to be eligible for a second “rehabilitation loan,” which would allow borrowers to exit default by making nine payments. The law only allows borrowers to rehabilitate their loans once. It also suggested reforming the Pell Grant to expand its eligibility to short-term credential programs.
A separate budget blueprint prepared by GOP members on the budget committee pledged to stop Biden’s “student loan bailout,” saying that “our budget resolution stops all forms of these unconstitutional, inflationary, and regressive student loan debt cancellations.”
Biden concluded his term with a final week of targeted student-debt relief measures for borrowers. He announced targeted relief for thousands of nonprofit and government workers, those with total and permanent disabilities, and those the Education Department found were defrauded by their schools, bringing total relief under Biden to $188.8 billion for 5.3 million borrowers.
The Education Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider on Trump’s priorities for higher education and student-loan borrowers. However, Trump has previously been critical of Biden’s debt relief efforts, and it’s likely his administration would support GOP legislation to curb Biden’s expanded relief and repayment efforts.
Rep. Tim Walberg, chair of the House education committee, told BI that he remains “committed to helping address the rising cost of college tuition.”
“Republicans are committed to pursuing policies that will lower the cost of college and protect students and taxpayers from colleges and universities that offer degrees that aren’t worth the cost,” Walberg said.
GOP higher education plans
The GOP memo said that eliminating the SAVE plan and streamlining other income-driven repayment plans would save $127.3 billion over a decade. The SAVE plan, first introduced in 2023, was intended to make monthly student-loan payments cheaper with a shorter timeline for loan forgiveness. The plan faced lawsuits from GOP-led states, and enrolled borrowers are on forbearance as they await a final court decision.
Repealing Biden’s regulations making it easier for borrowers who the government determined were defrauded by their colleges to get loan forgiveness is also among the GOP’s suggestions. The memo said this would save a total of $14.6 billion over a decade.
Additionally, the memo proposed ending interest capitalization, which is when unpaid interest is tacked onto a borrower’s principal balance, causing their overall debt load to surge. This is an idea that Democratic lawmakers have voiced support for, as well.
Some of these ideas have been previously floated in GOP legislation. The College Cost Reduction Act, introduced by GOP Rep. Virginia Foxx last January, outlined various priorities that included capping certain forms of financial aid and limiting the education secretary’s authority to implement new relief and repayment programs. The legislation would help ensure students do not take on debt they cannot afford, Foxx said.
“Student-loan debt is skyrocketing, and completion rates are plummeting. There’s bipartisan agreement that lasting reforms are needed to correct course,” Foxx told BI after the bill was introduced last year.
While Republicans hold control over Congress, their proposals are still likely to face pushback from Democratic lawmakers. Democrats on the House’s education committee introduced their road map for higher education affordability last year, which included a range of legislation that addressed financial transparency and making relief easier through PSLF.
For now, borrowers are still waiting to hear more from Trump and lawmakers on any changes that could be implemented. Trump and some Republicans have even supported getting rid of the Education Department altogether, but doing so would be operationally complicated and require approval from Congress.
As the Biden administration continues to focus on improving access to higher education and reducing student loan debt, many are wondering what the future holds for student loan borrowers under the Trump administration and GOP lawmakers.
One potential change that could be on the horizon is the elimination of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, which allows borrowers who work in public service jobs to have their student loans forgiven after 10 years of payments. This program has been a target for Republicans in the past, who argue that it is too costly and benefits too few borrowers.
Additionally, there may be efforts to streamline and simplify the student loan repayment process, potentially by reducing the number of income-driven repayment plans available to borrowers. This could make it easier for borrowers to understand their options and make informed decisions about how to repay their loans.
Another possibility is the expansion of income share agreements (ISAs), which are an alternative to traditional student loans where borrowers agree to pay a percentage of their income for a set period of time in exchange for funding their education. ISAs have gained popularity among some Republicans as a way to shift the risk of student loan repayment from borrowers to investors.
Overall, it is unclear what specific changes will be made to the student loan system under the Trump administration and GOP lawmakers. However, it is clear that there will likely be efforts to reduce the burden of student loan debt on borrowers and make the repayment process more efficient and transparent.
In a rebuke to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, the GOP-dominated Florida legislature on Monday quickly gaveled out a special session called by the two-term governor to take up a series of proposals to help implement President Donald Trump‘s immigration crackdown.
State lawmakers then held their own special session, where they passed other immigration bills and also overrode a DeSantis budget veto, the first time in 15 years the legislature has overturned a Florida governor’s veto.
It was a dramatic turn of events for DeSantis, who long enjoyed massive influence over the Florida legislature, especially after his nearly 20-point re-election in 2022.
But following his unsuccessful 2024 White House bid, the now-lame duck governor doesn’t have the same clout over lawmakers that he once enjoyed.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, left, speaks as Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, right, listens before President-elect Donald Trump talks at a meeting with Republican governors at Mar-a-Lago on Thursday, Jan. 9, 2025, in Palm Beach, Florida.(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
“This would have been unthinkable two years ago,” a Florida-based Republican strategist told Fox News.
The strategist, who asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely, added that “it shows that he’s sunsetting and the legislature is not afraid to buck him.”
DeSantis wanted lawmakers to pass bills that would support the president’s flurry of immigration and border executive orders, signed since last Monday’s inauguration, and Trump’s plans for mass deportation of illegal immigrants.
The governor called for mandating that Florida’s counties and cities participate in the federal deportation program and wants the power to suspend officials who do not comply. He also proposed to make it a state crime to enter the nation illegally, and he wants to mandate that people show identification and their immigration status before sending money back home.
“We’ve got to make sure that we are working hand-in-hand with the Trump administration,” DeSantis emphasized last week in an interview on Fox News’ “Ingraham Angle.”
He added that the special legislative session would help “to facilitate the Trump administration’s mission.”
The Florida State Capitol Building, as seen in Tallahassee, Florida. (Mark Wallheiser/Getty Images)
Eleven bills were filed on the eve of the special session by Florida lawmakers. Among them are measures to create a state immigration czar and to allow the governor to activate the national and state guards for immigration enforcement.
Under Florida’s constitution, if the governor calls for a special session, lawmakers are obligated to show up at the capitol in Tallahassee. However, the top Republicans in the state House and Senate say that while they support Trump’s immigration efforts, the special session is unnecessary with the regularly scheduled legislative session scheduled for early March.
“It’s not premature,” DeSantis told Fox News. “We’ve been waiting four years to have a partner in Washington, D.C., on this issue. We have a sense of urgency. We have to get the job done. No more dragging your feet.”
But lawmakers quickly adjourned and then held their own session.
“I believe special sessions should be used sparingly,” state House Speaker Daniel Perez, a Republican, said during his address to the House. “They should not be stunts designed to generate headlines.
GOP state Senate president Ben Albritton said “sometimes leadership isn’t about being out front on an issue. It’s actually about following the leader you trust. For my part, I trust President Trump,”
Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, center, speaks at a campaign stop in Hampton, New Hampshire, on Wednesday, Jan. 17, 2024.(Paul Steinhauser/Fox News)
The governor, in a statement Monday afternoon, said “though the Florida legislature’s leadership initially said the call for a special session on immigration enforcement was “premature,” they have now finally agreed to come in and do their job.”
“I am glad the Legislature’s bill includes many of my proposals, including the long-overdue need to eliminate tuition waivers for illegal immigrant students. But overall, their new bill is substantially weaker than the proposals I outlined and that are necessary to ensure that Florida leads on fulfilling the Trump Administration’s mandate to enforce immigration law and deport illegal aliens,” he emphasized.
DeSantis, who waged a bitter and unsuccessful primary challenge against Trump for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, was praised by the then-president-elect earlier this month.
“Thank you Ron, hopefully other governors will follow!” Trump wrote in a social media post after DeSantis announced the special session.
Dan Eberhart, an oil drilling chief executive officer and a prominent Republican donor and bundler who raised big bucks for Trump’s 2020 and 2024 campaigns, but who supporter DeSantis in the 2024 GOP presidential primaries, told Fox News that “Gov. DeSantis is right about the issues that need to be addressed. This was just a matter of timing,”
Republican lawmakers in Florida have made a bold move by defying Governor Ron DeSantis and scrapping his proposed special session. Instead, they have called their own session to address key issues facing the state.
The decision to bypass DeSantis’ special session comes amidst growing tensions between the governor and members of his own party. Many Republican lawmakers have voiced concerns over DeSantis’ handling of various issues, including COVID-19 response, education funding, and environmental policy.
By taking matters into their own hands, Republican lawmakers are asserting their independence and showing that they are not afraid to challenge the governor’s authority. This move could signal a shift in power dynamics within the GOP in Florida, as lawmakers seek to assert their own agenda and priorities.
It remains to be seen how Governor DeSantis will respond to this bold move by his fellow Republicans. Will he try to regain control and assert his authority, or will he work with lawmakers to find common ground and address the pressing issues facing the state?
One thing is clear: Republican lawmakers in Florida are not afraid to defy their own party leader in order to do what they believe is best for the people of their state. This could be a turning point in Florida politics, and it will be fascinating to see how it unfolds in the coming days and weeks.
Tags:
Republican lawmakers, Florida, DeSantis, special session, defiance, political news, legislative power, GOP, Florida politics, state government, political standoff
Since 1793, when the U.S. Supreme Court declined a request by President George Washington to offer legal guidance on foreign relations, the court’s justices have steered away from weighing in outside the context of a formal lawsuit.
That has not deterred lawmakers in Idaho, however. This week, a State House committee overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to undo Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 decision that gave same-sex couples the right to marry, and to hand the power to regulate marriage back to the states.
The resolution would still need approval by the full House and the Idaho Senate before any request could be sent to the Supreme Court. Both chambers in Idaho are controlled by Republicans.
“Since court rulings are not laws and only legislatures elected by the people may pass laws, Obergefell is an illegitimate overreach,” the resolution reads. It continues: “The Idaho Legislature calls upon the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse Obergefell and restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman.’’
An organization based in Massachusetts called MassResistance has pressed for the resolution, The Idaho Statesman reported. The group describes itself as a “pro-family activist organization” and traces its roots to marriage equality battles in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage became legal as a result of a 2003 decision by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court.
At the hearing in Idaho, the sponsor of the measure, Representative Heather Scott, a Republican, said it was important to make a statement about states’ rights.
“If we start down this road where the federal government or the judiciary decides that they’re going to create rights for us, then they can take rights away,” she said.
Several dozen demonstrators filled the committee room on Wednesday before walking out together as Ms. Scott introduced the proposal, local news reports said.
“What is the purpose of this exercise?” said Mistie DelliCarpini-Tolman, the Idaho director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, who lives with her wife not far from Boise. “It really feels like a value statement being sent to the L.G.B.T.Q. community in Idaho that they are not welcome.’’
Ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v.Wade in 2022, legal scholars have said that the same-sex marriage ruling may also be vulnerable. Two of the court’s conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have suggested that it should be reconsidered.
Still, legal scholars said that Idaho’s approach — with a letter of request, instead of an active legal suit — seemed unlikely to carry weight.
“This is just theater,’’ said Tobias Wolff, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “I will leave it to others to judge what impact it might have as a political matter, but the Supreme Court will no more respond to a letter from the Idaho Legislature than they would a letter from me.’’
But advocates for the resolution said their efforts reflected the views of many residents of their state. In 2006, Idaho voters passed an amendment to the State Constitution limiting marriage to between men and women.
Idaho Lawmakers are pushing for the Supreme Court to overturn the decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. This move comes after a recent ruling by a federal court judge that struck down Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage, citing it as unconstitutional.
The lawmakers argue that the decision to legalize same-sex marriage should be left up to the states, and not decided by the federal government. They believe that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman, and that the Supreme Court should uphold this traditional definition.
Supporters of same-sex marriage, on the other hand, argue that love is love, and that everyone should have the right to marry the person they love, regardless of gender. They believe that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is a form of discrimination and goes against the principles of equality and fairness.
It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will rule on this controversial issue, but one thing is for certain: the debate over same-sex marriage in Idaho is far from over. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., praises President Donald Trump while continuing to criticize former President Joe Biden during a news conference at the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
An aide to House Speaker Mike Johnson advised Republican colleagues against subpoenaing former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson as part of their investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack to prevent the release of sexually explicit texts that lawmakers sent her, according to written correspondence reviewed by The Post and a person familiar with the effort.
The aide intervened last June, citing concerns that a subpoena could expose the texts, according to the correspondence and the person, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about private conversations. Johnson revived the investigation this week as part of an effort by President Donald Trump and his allies to seek retribution against perceived political enemies, including those who investigated his role in the Capitol attack.
In a meeting following the June conversation, Johnson (R-Louisiana.) and senior aides also conveyed to Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Georgia) and members of his staff that issuing a subpoena to Hutchinson and asking her to testify under oath would serve as another opportunity for her to retell her story and potentially embarrass the Trump White House, according to two people present for the meeting.
Loudermilk had publicly floated the idea of issuing a subpoena to Hutchinson, who was elevated to national prominence in an explosive 2022 hearing, where she testified that President Trump had wanted an armed mob to march to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 – and that he wanted to join them.
Before that meeting, a Johnson aide told Loudermilk’s staff that multiple colleagues had raised concerns with the speaker’s office about the potential for public disclosure of “sexual texts from members who were trying to engage in sexual favors” with Hutchinson, according to correspondence produced at the time that detailed the conversation. Separately, a member of Johnson’s staff told Loudermilk aides that Hutchinson could “potentially reveal embarrassing information,” according to an email reviewed by The Post.
In the last Congress, Loudermilk headed a Republican investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which included among its targets the Democratic probe of the attack that finished its work in 2022. Critics have attacked the GOP investigation as part of Trump’s effort to rewrite the history of what happened on Jan. 6 and to seek retribution against those who blamed him for inciting the violence.
Loudermilk has been jockeying to lead a reconstituted version of the investigation this year. On Wednesday, Johnson appointed him to chair a new select subcommittee that would continue the probe.
Loudermilk was considering issuing a subpoena to obtain testimony and electronic communications fromHutchinson because he believed she could provide fresh information,according to two people involved with the probe, about one of the panel’s central targets and atop political foe of President Trump who had orchestrated Hutchinson’s surprise testimony: former representative Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming).
The Washington Post reviewed documentation reflecting the speaker’s office’s concern ahead of the June meeting between him and Loudermilk that corroborated the person’s account, but has not seen the purported sexually explicit messages nor identified who sent them or whether Hutchinson responded.
In a statement, Hutchinson’s lawyer, Bill Jordan, did not address the existence of texts and said his client has cooperated voluntarily with the investigation. He also criticized the interim report Loudermilk issued in December, which accused Cheney of “secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge.”
“Ms. Hutchinson has testified truthfully and stands behind every word despite the efforts of men in powerful positions to attack her,” Jordan said.
Neither Johnson’s nor Loudermilk’s offices immediately provided comments. A spokesperson for Cheney also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Cheney issued a statement in December, calling Loudermilk’s report “defamatory” and a “malicious and cowardly assault on the truth.”
Loudermilk told CNN in an interview earlier this month that Johnson had agreed that his probe from the previous Congress would be reconstituted this year in a new committee. Johnson’s announcement Wednesday specified that the new investigative subcommittee would now sit within the House Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). It previously lived under House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil (R-Wisconsin).
Cheney, along with members and some staff on the committee, have since received blanket preemptive pardons fromformer president Joe Biden to shield them from criminal prosecutions by the Trump administration. Hutchinson was not among the pardonees.
Over the course of their investigation, Loudermilk’s team obtained never-before-seen correspondence documenting apparent concerns Cheney had about communicating with Hutchinson without her lawyer. In early 2024, Loudermilk instructed Hutchinson to produce and preserve all records related to Jan. 6, but staff did not call Hutchinson to testify under oath before the committee. Staffers involved with the investigation argued that more could be gleanedfrom her with the help of the panel’s subpoena power.
It’s not clear if Cheney’s pardon will dampen enthusiasm for the House panel to continue its line of investigation. A growing number of House members and Trump allies are calling for deeper investigations around those who received preemptive pardons from Biden. And Trump himself has indicated that recasting the narrative around the Jan. 6 attack is still front of mind, issuing a blanket pardon Monday evening of virtually all of the defendants convicted for their roles in the riot. He commuted the sentences of the remaining 14, cutting short sentences for nine members of the Oath Keepers and five members of the Proud Boys, both far-right groups.
Loudermilk told reporters on Inauguration Day that Trump himself had asked him to “continue the investigation and continue to expose the truth.”
“I know President Trump is 100 percent behind it,” Loudermilk said.
In a recent development, an aide to House Speaker Johnson has advised against subpoenaing a star witness of the Jan. 6 insurrection over concerns about receiving “sexual texts” from lawmakers. The witness, who played a key role in providing crucial information about the events of that fateful day, has been at the center of controversy due to alleged inappropriate communications with lawmakers.
The decision to not subpoena the witness has sparked debate among members of the House, with some arguing that the information provided by the witness is essential for a thorough investigation into the insurrection. Others, however, are wary of potentially damaging revelations that could come to light if the witness is compelled to testify under oath.
As the debate rages on, it remains to be seen how the House Speaker will navigate these tricky waters and ensure that justice is served in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 insurrection. Stay tuned for further updates on this unfolding story.
Brooke Rollins, President Trump’s pick to lead the Agriculture Department, will appear before senators on Thursday to address how she plans to manage the agency, which supports the U.S. farm sector and administers food assistance programs.
Ms. Rollins, a former White House official during Mr. Trump’s first term, does not have the traditional résumé of an agriculture secretary, though her past suggests she has an interest in the sector: She participated in youth agricultural programs, has a degree in agricultural development and, according to her public financial disclosure, owns show cattle.
She also led two prominent conservative think tanks and served as deputy general counsel to the governor of Texas, where she is from. If she is confirmed, it would be a break with recent secretaries, who have typically been governors or lawmakers from farm states.
She has garnered the support of nearly every major farm group, including the influential American Farm Bureau and trade associations representing growers of the nation’s largest crops. A letter signed by more than 400 organizations specifically cited her “close working relationship” with Mr. Trump as an asset.
Senator John Boozman, Republican of Arkansas and the chairman of the agriculture committee, praised Ms. Rollins’s credentials after meeting with her in December — signaling that she had mustered enough support to be confirmed. He said she was “well positioned to be a strong voice and advocate for farmers, ranchers and forest landowners.”
If confirmed, Ms. Rollins would oversee an agency with an annual budget of more than $200 billion and nearly 100,000 employees. While Congress determines much of the department’s funding levels, the agriculture secretary can still exert great influence over federal food and farm policy.
At her confirmation hearing, Ms. Rollins is likely to be asked about two of Mr. Trump’s key policy priorities — tariffs and cracking down on illegal immigration — and what effect they could have on the agricultural sector. Canada, for example, has suggested that it could place retaliatory tariffs on Kentucky bourbon and Florida oranges, inflicting economic pain on grain and citrus growers. And large-scale deportations of unauthorized migrants could cut into a key source of agricultural labor.
In over two decades in conservative politics, Ms. Rollins has said little publicly about agriculture and food policy, but the two think tanks she led may provide some insight into her positions and interests.
The group she helped found in 2021, the America First Policy Institute, has warned of the risks of Chinese ownership of American farmland and criticized the Biden administration’s expansion of food stamp benefits and its energy policies. Her previous think tank, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, has opposed efforts to curb fossil fuels, as well as farm subsidies and ethanol mandates, which both have traditionally garnered bipartisan support in Congress.
Lawmakers may also question Ms. Rollins on the role that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mr. Trump’s pick for health secretary, would play in agriculture and food policy. During the campaign, Mr. Trump said he would let Mr. Kennedy “go wild on the food” and Ms. Rollins once praised his platform as “appealing” to young and independent voters.
But Mr. Kennedy’s agenda could run counter to the more traditional approaches of agribusinesses and farm groups. He has expressed support for eliminating certain foods from school meals and food stamps, calling them unhealthy. He has emphasized organic and regenerative agriculture, less pesticide use, an overhaul of subsidies for commodities like corn and soybeans and opposition to seed oils like canola and sunflower.
The Trump administration recently filled senior staff positions in the agriculture department with officials who have more traditional backgrounds in the sector. They include a chief of staff who led the National Oilseed Processors Association, which includes seed oils.
President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, is set to face questioning from lawmakers during his confirmation hearing. Perdue, a former governor of Georgia, will be grilled on a range of issues related to agriculture, including farm subsidies, trade policies, and crop insurance.
Many lawmakers are eager to hear Perdue’s stance on key agricultural issues, particularly in light of the current challenges facing the industry, such as low commodity prices and uncertainty over trade agreements. Perdue’s confirmation hearing will provide an opportunity for lawmakers to gauge his knowledge and expertise in the field of agriculture, as well as his ability to lead the Department of Agriculture effectively.
As the nation’s top agricultural official, the Secretary of Agriculture plays a crucial role in shaping policies that impact farmers, ranchers, and rural communities across the country. It is essential that Perdue demonstrate a deep understanding of the challenges facing the agriculture industry and a commitment to supporting American farmers and ensuring a strong and sustainable food supply.
Lawmakers will be closely watching Perdue’s responses during his confirmation hearing, and his performance will likely play a significant role in determining whether he is ultimately confirmed as Secretary of Agriculture. Stay tuned for updates on the questioning of Trump’s agriculture pick as the confirmation process unfolds.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/adn/GL5OW4MFQ34FI4OMH6Q7PRSFVE.jpg)
